Shared Source .NET Ported to Linux 52
bjepson writes: "Shaun Bangay of the Rhodes University Computer Science Department has
released a port of Rotor
for Linux. You can find more details, including a download, at the O'Reilly Network."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Shared Source .NET Ported to Linux
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
To do nothing is to be nothing.
I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the licence attached with Rotor:
"You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for commercial purposes."
Rotor on Linux is as about as usefull, to me, as a Corvette is on Mt. Everest.
Except that the Corvette is cool, and Microsoft
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:2)
Maybe you should try using it before you try to say something about it. Using the
Just as example implementations of a whole ton of core CS concepts and an example implementation of a working VM the Rotor source is useful. Go read some of it.
- Steve
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:2)
Possibly - if you don't mind that any large
You say
In fact
No operating systems written with
No comercial games written with
No office suites written with
No drivers written with
No large apps at all with
(perhaps I'm wrong and someones cobbeled somthing together in these catagories, I don't keep active track)
Come back later when you've actually written somthing non trvial with
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:2)
Come back when you get a few years experience. You will then realise that...
1) Any language that is only, as you state, "a couple months" old has bugs...
2) Now one developemnt enviroument can be the best at everything.
3) Good programmers know mutiple tools and can pick and choose amung them.
4) Your favorite tool for your favorite type of app can quite often be the worst tool for a diferent type of app.
5) Non-crossplatform tools hurt you in the long run.
I'm not imppressed at all the the IDE for the new Visual Studio is done in C#; C#, and more specifically, it's libraries were designed from the ground up to make 32-bit Windows GUI apps.
Get back to me when someone writes a device driver in C#, then I'll be impressed.
There's nothing wrong with C# if you're making quick and dirty 32-bit Windows apps, but to say is the 'best' at everything, especially when it won't even work for embedded applications, betrayes a lack of experience.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
I was horrified to learn that they had been replaced by far more severe bugs. I will list a few of the ones which perterb me more.
- Cannot dock the properties window, the UI will hang when I switch from viewing a resource to a source file.
- Intellisense is better than in v6, but doesn't resolve properly if you create a typedef to a parameter type
- If the complete definition is not available for a class when you wish to pass it as a template parameter, the generated code will have no knowledge of that type. This is a problem if you define a CAutoPtr for some type for which you provide a forward declaration, but haven't included the header for that type beforehand. This is a bit of sneaky bitch, because the compiler will only create a given template once, and if it generates the one without the declaration, you're fsckd.
- Finally, it just up and locks up on me. Usually after a build, I think. I've really started getting in the habit of saving. (I hit ctrl-s ever time I pause to think, lest the system be unresponsive the next time I touch the keyboard)
So obviously C# is not the silver bullet. Neither is Java, mind you. The only cross-platform language is Perl (or Python, for those who's minds work that way)
I can show you a better tool for development, it's not hard...there are so many. Apple gives on away. MetroWerks makes a schweet product. Even Borl...Inpri...Borland's stuff is better.
Maybe my criteria for an IDE are different than yours.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
MS also makes the
I have been using these for several months with no problem.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Visual Studio .Net was not written in C#. It was written in C++. A lot of the .Net Framework is written in C# though.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
In fact
No operating systems written with
No comercial games written with
No office suites written with
No drivers written with
No large apps at all with
s/.NET/perl/g
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true only if you do not care about risk.
If you work on an application that is really important to your company's long-term health, and you want your company to be successful regardless of Microsoft's success, then
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
And who said that just because you use
Come up with a different argument than "Microsoft might possibly vanish in a puff of smoke just like the Earth did in Odyssey 5". Or at least back up your argument with more than ".NET is simply the worst development tool out there." So far I see no reason why I shouldn't rely on MS's new framework for parts of my next app based on your statements above.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
It isn't "lame", because my argument is that using another company's success as the basis for your own success is just plain risky. Could Microsoft--or any company--be here today but not here tomorrow? Sure, recent history (Enron, Global Crossing, the dot-bombs, etc.) makes this clear. Microsoft is not immune to the discoveries of corruption (Enron) nor to the market forces (dot-bombs) that can make a company fall.
As far as Java/J2EE goes, it is less risky than
And who said that just because you use
Microsoft. It is extremely unlikely that
As much as you'd like to think that C/C++ will just transfer from one environment to the other, most good apps require some sort of reworking to take advantage of OS-specific APIs for more than just GUI stuff. I've been doing x-platform development for a while now and C++ makes it easier, but it's not the panacea that you seem to think it is.
I never claimed C++ is a panacea but said that it can allow much less rework when used well (i.e., good C/C++ environments are common, good
This could be one legitimate use of
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
.Net is no more spastic mess than Java 2/J2EE
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:2)
You said it yourself. Not me.
Re:I really don't care - I can't use it. (Score:1)
Open source doesn't mean non-commercial
Most linux distros can be bought on a CD, that's commercial and they can't include anything that has a clause like this
Any business that uses Apache as a webserver for e.g a webshop is using it for commercial purposes.
If you have a private hompage running on apache but have a banner ad on it that pays you, you are using apache for commercial purposes
Oooooooooh well. (Score:2)
Re:having played with .Net (Score:2)
Write a "Web Form" with Visual Studio.NET and you get a
Best thing about this is the ASP.NET code has access to the same class library as any other app.. so it's really easy to do things like get a graphics object, render some stuff into it, convert it into a jpeg and stream it back to the client. Stuff that'd be nearly impossible with ASP.
(There are toolkits to do this for ASP, the same as there are for Perl and other languages - the difference in this case is that the ASP.NET code is calling the same drawing functions that any other non-web application would be calling.. not calling through a wrapper etc).
- Steve
Re:having played with .Net (Score:1)
The big question now is:
How does a BSODed Webserver look like, when viewed from a browser?
Re:having played with .Net (Score:1)
Re:having played with .Net (Score:2)
I don't see that this is any advantage.
Lando
subversive plan (Score:2)
How can I benefit? (Score:2)
Specifically I would like to offer customers solutions using Python. But if they want
I'd prefer not to lie to customers.
If I could tell them that it's possible, at a price, that would be something! My customers would be prepared to pay! Not that they may ever need it once I get them their Zope/Python sites, mind you. I just want to leave them the option.
Firstly, what would I have to do (pay) to get
Secondly, is it even possible to get
Re:How can I benefit? (Score:2)
With Microsoft Rotor, you will leverage your synergies to a higher ROI on your brain-share throughputs - now with new patented Microsoft "Shit-In-A-Box" Technology*!
* Microsoft Rotor "Shit-In-A-Box" technology includes intellectual property licensed from Star Trek Ear-worm Developer Systems, Inc.
Re:How can I benefit? (Score:2)
Perhaps if you can't bring
You'd still be running a 'chalenged' server software, but it's an option.
Re:How can I benefit? (Score:1)
Re:How can I benefit? (Score:1)
http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/Ini
Can't Wait (Score:1)
Still not interested (Score:1)